pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Kelly Thompson Leaving Getty January 20th  (Read 19091 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:16 »
0


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2012, 09:19 »
0
WOW, Kelly Thompson is leaving Getty. Last day is tomorrow January 20th.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140045/jobs-shed-getty-images-absorbs-istockphoto


Not that surprising, I must say. Either it's true that he was kicked upstairs and they're now forcing him to the door, or else he's found the Getty culture intolerable. Or maybe a bit of both.

« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2012, 09:21 »
0
Interesting indeed, considering he just relocated all the way to New York this past September or October. 

« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2012, 09:26 »
0
Interesting indeed, considering he just relocated all the way to New York this past September or October. 

Yes. It's rather poignant. If you look at his Facebook page, you'll see he posted on December 11 saying that his son wouldn't be joining him in New York for another month. He obviously wasn't expecting to leave a week after that.

« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2012, 09:38 »
+1
Yes. It's rather poignant.

Not really. Kelly won't need money to make him happy.

« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2012, 09:51 »
0
He could not handle the New York culture!  ;D

« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2012, 10:27 »
0
Yes. It's rather poignant.

Not really. Kelly won't need money to make him happy.

Kapow! Still, whilst he's in New York, he should drop by the offices of Shutterstock. Apparently they're 'hiring like crazy' at the moment so maybe they could use Kelly's ... er ... copywriting skills.

« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2012, 10:40 »
0
Maybe he will start his own stock company, buy one or partner with one. The question is, who will follow him?

helix7

« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2012, 10:49 »
0
From the article:

Quote
Kelly has now decided that the time is right for him to leave the business to pursue other interests...

Sounds like it was his decision, although who knows what transpired to lead him to that.

I'm inclined to think he's following the lead of Bruce and Rob, finding the goings-on at Getty intolerable. I'd guess the layoffs probably didn't sit well with anyone from istock since the jobs cut were deemed "redundant" and only the istock folks were on the receiving end of the redundancy cuts.

Side note: Kind of an interesting statement being made there. Whenever there are job redundancies, the Getty employees win.

I really do hope that Kelly chose this for himself, for whatever reason. Him being pushed out the door would just add to the disappointments of the week for istock.

« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2012, 10:53 »
0
From the article:

Quote
Kelly has now decided that the time is right for him to leave the business to pursue other interests...

Sounds like it was his decision, although who knows what transpired to lead him to that.


I don't think so. This is the common way to say he was fired.

wut

« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2012, 11:00 »
0
Maybe he will start his own stock company, buy one or partner with one. The question is, who will follow him?

I wouldn't believe a word he says, he's the type of ppl that con artists are, or lawyers. Or he could make it in politics. He really excels in twisting and turning words, the truth even

helix7

« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2012, 11:05 »
0
I wouldn't believe a word he says, he's the type of ppl that con artists are, or lawyers. Or he could make it in politics. He really excels in twisting and turning words, the truth even

True, but I wonder how much of that was due to the strings being pulled up above at Getty. We know it wasn't his decision to cut royalties, even though he had to fall on his sword and tell us that the decision came from within istock HQ. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any respect for a person who goes along with stuff like that and acts like a puppet, which is why I still have much respect for Bruce and Rob for leaving (allegedly) when things got distasteful. Kelly should have left a long time ago. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it just took him longer to get to that point, and although he'll forever be remembered at istock as the guy leading the charge to screw contributors, I'm inclined to believe that many of his actions were forced.

Again, that doesn't make what he did ok. Just saying that he might have been only half a con artist, being pushed by bigger cons higher up.

wut

« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2012, 11:15 »
0
I wouldn't believe a word he says, he's the type of ppl that con artists are, or lawyers. Or he could make it in politics. He really excels in twisting and turning words, the truth even

True, but I wonder how much of that was due to the strings being pulled up above at Getty. We know it wasn't his decision to cut royalties, even though he had to fall on his sword and tell us that the decision came from within istock HQ. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any respect for a person who goes along with stuff like that and acts like a puppet, which is why I still have much respect for Bruce and Rob for leaving (allegedly) when things got distasteful. Kelly should have left a long time ago. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that it just took him longer to get to that point, and although he'll forever be remembered at istock as the guy leading the charge to screw contributors, I'm inclined to believe that many of his actions were forced.

Again, that doesn't make what he did ok. Just saying that he might have been only half a con artist, being pushed by bigger cons higher up.

He didn't have to do anything ;)

KB

« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2012, 11:16 »
0
Again, that doesn't make what he did ok. Just saying that he might have been only half a con artist, being pushed by bigger cons higher up.

Uh-huh. Sort of like being only half pregnant?  ;D

« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2012, 11:23 »
0
Wow. And to think just two days ago I suggested he might not still be there.

« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2012, 11:29 »
0
From the article:

Quote
Kelly has now decided that the time is right for him to leave the business to pursue other interests...

Sounds like it was his decision, although who knows what transpired to lead him to that.


I don't think so. This is the common way to say he was fired.

my thoughts exactly.

lagereek

« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2012, 11:30 »
0
Just another way of saying: your fired.  Same Getty pattern as for the last 20 years. Still,  never a nice thing.

« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2012, 11:36 »
0
The big picture really sucks. Whenever a Canadian company is remotely successful foreign investors gobble it up and most often destroy it.  I personally know so many people who have been moved to New York or Los Angeles.  Virtually all of them layed off within a year.  I used to be so happy (and jealous) of them, but the same thing happened every time!

wut

« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2012, 11:42 »
0
The big picture really sucks. Whenever a Canadian company is remotely successful foreign investors gobble it up and most often destroy it.  I personally know so many people who have been moved to New York or Los Angeles.  Virtually all of them layed off within a year.  I used to be so happy (and jealous) of them, but the same thing happened every time!

They don't just gobble it up, it gets sold by it's owners. It's their decision to do so. They could decide otherwise.

And for everyone singing praises to Bruce, saying he sold it because he knew what was going to happen; who shouldn't have sold if he knew what was in store for IS if he (like many say) cared so much about the company.

« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2012, 11:46 »
0
Bruce built a business and sold it for a riddiculous amount of money.  I would definitely do the same!  It's funny, but money does make me happy.  Well, maybe it does, I've never had too much of it to know if it's a bad thing or not.

« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2012, 11:53 »
0
Bruce built a business and sold it for a riddiculous amount of money

He certainly did. He sold it for a tiny fraction of what it was worth. Three or four years later he could probably have sold it for close to $1B. If he'd have made exclusivity just a little more attractive, such that the competition couldn't have got a foothold, he might have made $2B or more.

« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2012, 12:01 »
0
Yes. It's rather poignant.

Not really. Kelly won't need money to make him happy.

Kapow! Still, whilst he's in New York, he should drop by the offices of Shutterstock. Apparently they're 'hiring like crazy' at the moment so maybe they could use Kelly's ... er ... copywriting skills.

These days SS is offering company benefits similar to IS, who knows maybe they already made a deal. The SS benefits below are for a lower level job, just think what they would offer someone higher up. Frankly I was not too enthused to see that SS is hiring former IS employees, we certainly do not need to spread IS's company culture and business practices to other sites.  Yet with all the SS bugs maybe they did hire their programmers to permanently bury new images.

"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

lagereek

« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2012, 12:04 »
0
Bruce built a business and sold it for a riddiculous amount of money.  I would definitely do the same!  It's funny, but money does make me happy.  Well, maybe it does, I've never had too much of it to know if it's a bad thing or not.

I think the money Bruce got was a fair and correct amount, we must not forget at the moment he sold, IS, was without doubt the premiere site. Nowdays, they are trying their best to ruin the 50 mill they paid for the place. Clever, isnt it. ::)

« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2012, 12:07 »
0
Wow. And to think just two days ago I suggested he might not still be there.

You did! Maybe Klein read your post and thought "Great idea Cas, I'll fire him tomorrow".

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2012, 12:10 »
0

These days SS is offering company benefits similar to IS, who knows maybe they already made a deal. The SS benefits below are for a lower level job, just think what they would offer someone higher up. Frankly I was not too enthused to see that SS is hiring former IS employees, we certainly do not need to spread IS's company culture and business practices to other sites.  Yet with all the SS bugs maybe they did hire their programmers to permanently bury new images.

"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"
But do they have "Friday afternoon Rock Band sessions and more than 100 arcade games available in our snack-stocked cafeteria."?
Grief, this massage must be a great thing.  ::)
I had a head massage once. I found it embarrassing and it relaxed me for about 10 minutes afterwards max.
Embarassing is an exaggeration; 'uncomfortable' is more like it, socially rather than physically; in the same way as I feel uncomfortable if a waiter puts my napkin onto my lap or pulls out a chair for me.

« Reply #25 on: January 19, 2012, 12:19 »
0
This is the making of a good movie, WoW interesting year ahead!

« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2012, 12:40 »
0

These days SS is offering company benefits similar to IS, who knows maybe they already made a deal. The SS benefits below are for a lower level job, just think what they would offer someone higher up. Frankly I was not too enthused to see that SS is hiring former IS employees, we certainly do not need to spread IS's company culture and business practices to other sites.  Yet with all the SS bugs maybe they did hire their programmers to permanently bury new images.

"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"
But do they have "Friday afternoon Rock Band sessions and more than 100 arcade games available in our snack-stocked cafeteria."?
Grief, this massage must be a great thing.  ::)
I had a head massage once. I found it embarrassing and it relaxed me for about 10 minutes afterwards max.
Embarassing is an exaggeration; 'uncomfortable' is more like it, socially rather than physically; in the same way as I feel uncomfortable if a waiter puts my napkin onto my lap or pulls out a chair for me.

I have worked for two companies that offered such perks. At our yearly summer party they would hire Cirque du Soleil and Grade A musicians to entertain us. We received full massages in privacy and I must say I did appreciate it, but in the end I have decided that a reliable paycheck and a healthy company culture is preferable. 

As the management got fuller and fuller of themselves they made poor business choices and as their arrogance increased it trickled down to the rest of the company. As a result the companies became less and less competitive. Both of those companies have laid off large numbers of employees as well as outsourcing  jobs they could overseas.

« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2012, 12:42 »
0
Pursuing other interests or spending more time with your family are both ways of saying someone's been pushed out, IMO.

I feel bad for someone who relocates and is then dumped, but I do think it was pretty predictable this would happen when you're offered VP after being COO of a business unit (which always seemed like one of those temporary slots used to move people out without a fuss). Given that my opinion of Kelly's tin ear for the iStock community and how his messages would go over, perhaps he's just really bad at reading people and situations and couldn't read Getty's messages to him any more than he could read those of contributors to iStock.

I hope he can land on his feet somewhere, but I hope it's a million miles from any stock agency or software development outfit I am in any way associated with.

wut

« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2012, 12:50 »
0
I had a head massage once. I found it embarrassing and it relaxed me for about 10 minutes afterwards max.
Embarassing is an exaggeration; 'uncomfortable' is more like it, socially rather than physically; in the same way as I feel uncomfortable if a waiter puts my napkin onto my lap or pulls out a chair for me.

I felt the same way the first time I had a Thai massage. When she started to wash my feet, I felt it was kind of degrading to her (or better said her doing it), but then I thought about it, it's their culture and something that's absolutely normal for her and everyone from her cultural environment. Hell, it was normal in the western world up to a few decades ago. Now I feel 100% comfortable while she washes my feet. In a way it's pretty cool, being cared for, pampered in such a way. I often joke with chauvinistic remarks, to piss the feminists off, I'm not chauvinistic at all, but I have to admit, sometimes, for a brief moment it feels good to feel dominant in such a way, especially, because I know, it's really not degrading for her to do it.

« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2012, 12:53 »
0
While I don't wish anyone ill will, I can't say that I feel too bad for him. 
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 12:55 by jsmithzz »

« Reply #30 on: January 19, 2012, 13:06 »
0

« Reply #31 on: January 19, 2012, 13:08 »
0
The $hit hits the fan, Litterally!


Is all i can say.

wut

« Reply #32 on: January 19, 2012, 13:21 »
0
Do you really think a few sacked puppets will make any difference at all? If so, just how bad it's going to become? :o

« Reply #33 on: January 19, 2012, 13:53 »
0
Interesting how the official statement only mentions JJRD, while Kelly is left out.  That tells me only one thing...Kelly was fired.

ShadySue

« Reply #34 on: January 19, 2012, 13:56 »
0
Interesting how the official statement only mentions JJRD, while Kelly is left out.  That tells me only one thing...Kelly was fired.
Did Kelly have anything to do with iStock latterly?
The goodbyes to him from iStock were already said, IIRC.

« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2012, 13:58 »
0
Interesting how the official statement only mentions JJRD, while Kelly is left out.  That tells me only one thing...Kelly was fired.
Did Kelly have anything to do with iStock latterly?
The goodbyes to him from iStock were already said, IIRC.

right he was already out as iStock COO and "promoted" to NY with Getty. So he's leaving Getty now, already cut the strings from iStock

« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2012, 14:10 »
0
He was promoted to Getty, yes, but according to the infamous interview, he was still involved with overseeing IS, Thinkstock and Photos.com.

« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2012, 14:49 »
0
Wow. And to think just two days ago I suggested he might not still be there.

You did! Maybe Klein read your post and thought "Great idea Cas, I'll fire him tomorrow".

Then he must have read my mind about JJRD! LOLOL. There are others I'm thinking about too...:D

« Reply #38 on: January 19, 2012, 15:04 »
0
Maybe he will start his own stock company, buy one or partner with one. The question is, who will follow him?

I wouldn't believe a word he says, he's the type of ppl that con artists are, or lawyers. Or he could make it in politics. He really excels in twisting and turning words, the truth even

Unfair, I think. I saw him as someone who was out of his depth. And it is precisely for that reason that I wouldn't follow him to oblivion in some new stock venture (not that there will be one because it would be very cruel of Getty not to make him sign a non-compete clause).

« Reply #39 on: January 19, 2012, 15:18 »
0
Anyone remember JJRD proclaiming that he believed in all the changes and that if iStock every did anything wrong they'd have his resignation in an instant? And finally, his departure looks suspiciously like Getty stamping on his fingers as he's desperately trying to cling on the to window-ledge.

"Will not be replaced" means they've just axed his post. I bet if they hadn't he'd be proclaiming the wisdom of streamlining and rooting out the dead wood.

« Reply #40 on: January 19, 2012, 15:23 »
0
Anyone remember JJRD proclaiming that he believed in all the changes and that if iStock every did anything wrong they'd have his resignation in an instant? And finally, his departure looks suspiciously like Getty stamping on his fingers as he's desperately trying to cling on the to window-ledge.

"Will not be replaced" means they've just axed his post. I bet if they hadn't he'd be proclaiming the wisdom of streamlining and rooting out the dead wood.

it's in the other thread about layoffs.. probably this discussion should move there as it's pretty much already is :)

« Reply #41 on: January 19, 2012, 15:25 »
0
Paulie's original link:

bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140045/jobs-shed-getty-images-absorbs-istockphoto

Getty Images absorbs istockphoto. Looks to me like there isn't going to be an istockphoto anymore. (I did not read the article yet, so don't know if that was addressed in the article).

edit: just read the other layoff thread and see where they've made a statement to that effect. sorry about that...such a flurry of excitement, it's hard to keep up!
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 15:35 by cclapper »

« Reply #42 on: January 19, 2012, 15:33 »
0
Anyone remember JJRD proclaiming that he believed in all the changes and that if iStock every did anything wrong they'd have his resignation in an instant? And finally, his departure looks suspiciously like Getty stamping on his fingers as he's desperately trying to cling on the to window-ledge.

"Will not be replaced" means they've just axed his post. I bet if they hadn't he'd be proclaiming the wisdom of streamlining and rooting out the dead wood.

How dare you Sir! I'm quite sure JJRD died a hero's death putting his donkey on the line for all of us __ just like he kept telling us he did.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 15:38 by gostwyck »

« Reply #43 on: January 19, 2012, 15:35 »
0
Wonder what kind of golden parachute Kelly got today?

If a book is ever written about all of this... I am interested in what Kelly might shed light into.  At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.  rogermexico seems to be one of the few original faces left, hope he is not forced to sell his soul or leave.

iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse.   Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #44 on: January 19, 2012, 15:46 »
0
I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.

« Reply #45 on: January 19, 2012, 15:50 »
0
Wonder what kind of golden parachute Kelly got today?

If a book is ever written about all of this... I am interested in what Kelly might shed light into.  At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.  rogermexico seems to be one of the few original faces left, hope he is not forced to sell his soul or leave.

iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse.   Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.

Years from now your avatar will make a movie called "Lobo & Me", where he goes to Calgary and finds laid off istockers hunting jackrabbits for food.

« Reply #46 on: January 19, 2012, 15:57 »
0
Wonder what kind of golden parachute Kelly got today?

If a book is ever written about all of this... I am interested in what Kelly might shed light into.  At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.  rogermexico seems to be one of the few original faces left, hope he is not forced to sell his soul or leave.

iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse.   Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.


Years from now your avatar will make a movie called "Lobo & Me", where he goes to Calgary and finds laid off istockers hunting jackrabbits for food.


   

« Reply #47 on: January 19, 2012, 15:59 »
0
 At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.

He got sacked. I should think his belief in the wisdom of iStock is a bit shaken.

« Reply #48 on: January 19, 2012, 18:36 »
0
 At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.

He got sacked. I should think his belief in the wisdom of iStock is a bit shaken.

Thank you! Why do people think he left of his own accord? That's not how the officious announcement over on the iStock forum reads. At all.

« Reply #49 on: January 19, 2012, 18:45 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

« Reply #50 on: January 19, 2012, 18:48 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

More likely just a matter of business vs. politics. I think he (and Kelly) got the axe because iStock is being absorbed into Getty, and if Getty's running its own show for iStock now, there's no place for more managers. They've already got their own management team. So folks like JJ and KK become redundant.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #51 on: January 19, 2012, 18:57 »
0

iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse.   Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.

More like a giant star that shines brightly, then collapses into a black hole (called Getty) that greedily tries to suck everything into its gaping maw.

ShadySue

« Reply #52 on: January 19, 2012, 18:57 »
0
 At least JJRD got out with his dignity and beliefs in place.  
He hasn't got out. It's his "... clear intention to remain an iStockphoto exclusive as well as a Getty Images contributing artist. "

« Reply #53 on: January 19, 2012, 19:51 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

« Reply #54 on: January 19, 2012, 21:02 »
0

iStock resembles a red giant star in the final stages of collapse.   Shine bright and expand then sheds its content; then a cold core cinder remains at the center slowly cooling until there is nothing left.

More like a giant star that shines brightly, then collapses into a black hole (called Getty) that greedily tries to suck everything into its gaping maw.

 :D :D :D :D

« Reply #55 on: January 19, 2012, 21:12 »
0
I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.

I haven't met them, and nice or not, I don't think it would take more than a couple of fingers to count the times Kelly meant what he communicated to me via the forums.

As for JJRD, who . even knew *what* he was trying to say, let alone whether or not he meant it????

« Reply #56 on: January 19, 2012, 21:15 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

I think jamesbenet was talking about JJRD, not Thompson. But I agree with all of your statements about Thompson above, for sure.

« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2012, 21:38 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.
Agreed. Kelly was one of most ineffective leaders I've ever seen. Sure, he was a nice guy, as Stacey pointed out.  But just because you're nice doesn't mean you can run a company. 

« Reply #58 on: January 19, 2012, 22:05 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.
Agreed. Kelly was one of most ineffective leaders I've ever seen. Sure, he was a nice guy, as Stacey pointed out.  But just because you're nice doesn't mean you can run a company. 

ain't that the truth.  My ex-husband is a really nice guy (and pretty good dad to my kids), too, but he can't handle a marriage (just ask his 1st, 2nd and 3rd x-wives!) 

« Reply #59 on: January 19, 2012, 22:18 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

I think jamesbenet was talking about JJRD, not Thompson. But I agree with all of your statements about Thompson above, for sure.


Yes I was talking about JJRD, Thomson is a whole other story.    Thomson was a manager under the Getty influence and his reality distortion and twisting were pretty contrarian to what Bruce and the old iStock were all about.   Every time he tried to fix things in a statement he shoveled deeper.   Wonder if the universe has some sort of justice system that is being served in his case.   I don't wish any of them wrong but I don't consider Kelly to be a friend of artists, he probably knew the grand plan years ago and steered the boat until it hit the rocks. He reminds me of the recent events with him jumping into the Getty lifeboat right after he saw the disaster, funny thing is the coastguard at Getty punched a big hole in his raft.

« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2012, 00:14 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

More likely just a matter of business vs. politics. I think he (and Kelly) got the axe because iStock is being absorbed into Getty, and if Getty's running its own show for iStock now, there's no place for more managers. They've already got their own management team. So folks like JJ and KK become redundant.

Dead right. If he was axed for fighting for contributors they would have put someone else in his place. If he quit in fury over them sacking his mates he would not meekly stick around for a few months to help them out by training other to do bits of his job.

What's happened is that Ms Rockefeller has completed her report on Integration and Profit Maximization at iStockphoto.com, the top dogs have approved it and it has now been implemented (incidentally, not only making KT redundant but also making him look foolish, once more. for confidently saying a few months ago that plans for iStock's development were mapped out for years ahead).

At least Jamesbenet is right about JJ's reputation: he does seem to have an adoring fan club around the world and, no doubt, this will work in his favour in years to come. For myself, I find the hero worship on the iStock forum rather disturbing, particularly as I can't recall him ever saying anything inspirational - just some bizzarely stilted love-in exchanges between him and other officials. Did I miss something?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 00:19 by BaldricksTrousers »

lagereek

« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2012, 02:19 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

100%  true!!  everything and all BS, happend during his era, the guy is totally and utterly incompetent, ( ofcourse!  sorry for anybody getting the boot), James, however must be thinking of somebody else or totally blindfolded.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2012, 02:29 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

100%  true!!  everything and all BS, happend during his era, the guy is totally and utterly incompetent, ( ofcourse!  sorry for anybody getting the boot), James, however must be thinking of somebody else or totally blindfolded.

C'mon Christian, we don't know the inner workings of iStock or what goes on behind the scene - slamming someone publicly like this isn't right nor fair.

lagereek

« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2012, 03:01 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.

100%  true!!  everything and all BS, happend during his era, the guy is totally and utterly incompetent, ( ofcourse!  sorry for anybody getting the boot), James, however must be thinking of somebody else or totally blindfolded.

C'mon Christian, we don't know the inner workings of iStock or what goes on behind the scene - slamming someone publicly like this isn't right nor fair.

Hi Martin!  well thats true, ( in a sense only)  but really, ask anybody, had he shown a bit of spunk, stood up a little bit and not been such a yes-man to the bosses, well?

You know, I dont want to paint the devil on the wall but frankly, one has got to be pretty blind, stubborn or die-hard to the point of sublimity, not to realize, under present circumbstances, that all this is just sinking the agency even further down the ladder and before its gone too far, well, you might want to start to reconsider a little bit,  spread your work or not.

all the best.  Christian :)

CarlssonInc

« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2012, 03:24 »
0
@christian

As I said, we know nothing about the actual situation. He might have put up a hell of fight, won some, lost some and probably fighting with one hand tied behind his back most of the time. We can't judge anyone, he probably had to navigate very difficult waters and I just think it is wrong to tarnish someone when we don't have the complete picture or when said someone can't freely talk/defend themselves. It is always very easy to put blame on someone.

This doesn't mean I think he was/is great nor bad - I just can't tell and refuse to base my opinion on only the few things that are visible. There is probably loads of stuff we don't know squat about. One should be very careful to judge, he has feelings and so does his family and would probably be very upset if they saw him painted as "completely incompetent". Remember that he is probably gagged for a quite a long time and can't defend/explain himself.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2012, 03:28 »
0
"You know, I dont want to paint the devil on the wall but frankly, one has got to be pretty blind, stubborn or die-hard to the point of sublimity, not to realize, under present circumbstances, that all this is just sinking the agency even further down the ladder and before its gone too far, well, you might want to start to reconsider a little bit,  spread your work or not."

Yes, one should always consider ones options. However, my stuff ain't solely with iStock (thank god), but quite heavily through different arrangements within the "Getty family". Time will tell, but yes the constant upheaval is taking it's toll.

« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2012, 11:44 »
0
@christian

As I said, we know nothing about the actual situation. He might have put up a hell of fight, won some, lost some and probably fighting with one hand tied behind his back most of the time. We can't judge anyone, he probably had to navigate very difficult waters and I just think it is wrong to tarnish someone when we don't have the complete picture or when said someone can't freely talk/defend themselves. It is always very easy to put blame on someone.

This doesn't mean I think he was/is great nor bad - I just can't tell and refuse to base my opinion on only the few things that are visible. There is probably loads of stuff we don't know squat about. One should be very careful to judge, he has feelings and so does his family and would probably be very upset if they saw him painted as "completely incompetent". Remember that he is probably gagged for a quite a long time and can't defend/explain himself.

 To go through life with the moniker Kelly But Money Isn't Going To Make Us Happy Thompson will be pennance enough.

« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2012, 12:19 »
0
I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.

Same here.

« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2012, 14:14 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

More likely just a matter of business vs. politics. I think he (and Kelly) got the axe because iStock is being absorbed into Getty, and if Getty's running its own show for iStock now, there's no place for more managers. They've already got their own management team. So folks like JJ and KK become redundant.

Dead right. If he was axed for fighting for contributors they would have put someone else in his place. If he quit in fury over them sacking his mates he would not meekly stick around for a few months to help them out by training other to do bits of his job.

What's happened is that Ms Rockefeller has completed her report on Integration and Profit Maximization at iStockphoto.com, the top dogs have approved it and it has now been implemented (incidentally, not only making KT redundant but also making him look foolish, once more. for confidently saying a few months ago that plans for iStock's development were mapped out for years ahead).

At least Jamesbenet is right about JJ's reputation: he does seem to have an adoring fan club around the world and, no doubt, this will work in his favour in years to come. For myself, I find the hero worship on the iStock forum rather disturbing, particularly as I can't recall him ever saying anything inspirational - just some bizzarely stilted love-in exchanges between him and other officials. Did I miss something?

Well said, all. And no. I don't think you/we missed a thing where JJ's mystic musings were concerned.

« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2012, 15:44 »
0
So I browsed the thread on the istock forum and see that Lobo is answering questions in typical Lobo-like fashion. So I presume he isn't one of the ones who got laid off? Does anyone know? I haven't been through all the threads yet today. Just curious. If he's staying, I guess that means the company thinks he is a doing a bang-up job.

« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2012, 19:07 »
0
So I browsed the thread on the istock forum and see that Lobo is answering questions in typical Lobo-like fashion. So I presume he isn't one of the ones who got laid off? Does anyone know? I haven't been through all the threads yet today. Just curious. If he's staying, I guess that means the company thinks he is a doing a bang-up job.

...or he just missed this round of cuts. Complete assimilation hasn't yet occurred...

« Reply #71 on: January 21, 2012, 05:34 »
0
So I browsed the thread on the istock forum and see that Lobo is answering questions in typical Lobo-like fashion. So I presume he isn't one of the ones who got laid off? Does anyone know? I haven't been through all the threads yet today. Just curious. If he's staying, I guess that means the company thinks he is a doing a bang-up job.

...or he just missed this round of cuts. Complete assimilation hasn't yet occurred...

Agreed. When Getty shuts down the istock forums he'll be out of a job. Not nice to have contributors complain about poor monthly sales all the time. Better to keep people in the dark and not discuss opinions or ideas.

« Reply #72 on: January 21, 2012, 12:28 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

You can stick your faux sympathy where the sun doesn't shine. Thompson's 'beliefs and reputation' as well as his actions led to millions of dollars of commissions being diverted from contributors to Istock during his watch. He was in charge of Istock when they offered to 'grandfather' canister levels and then essentially went back on that a few months later. If he'd had genuinely 'fought for us' and not got his way then he should have resigned at the time. To not have done so, as the man in charge, meant he endorsed the changes (far more than his 'beliefs and reputation').

Under Thompson's watch the most damaging series of actions in Istock's history occurred and have resulted in the downfall of the immensely strong business he inherited. If he wasn't responsible for that then at very best he was a weak and ineffective COO promoted way beyond his capability and his level of courage. He's lost us all a lot of money. F*ck him.
Agreed. Kelly was one of most ineffective leaders I've ever seen. Sure, he was a nice guy, as Stacey pointed out.  But just because you're nice doesn't mean you can run a company. 

ain't that the truth.  My ex-husband is a really nice guy (and pretty good dad to my kids), too, but he can't handle a marriage (just ask his 1st, 2nd and 3rd x-wives!) 

Sounds like he's been 'let go' a few times himself!

« Reply #73 on: January 21, 2012, 13:24 »
0
His beliefs and reputation will follow him, not related to iStock.  At least I think he fought for us all the way as long as he could. That is why he got the axe.

More likely just a matter of business vs. politics. I think he (and Kelly) got the axe because iStock is being absorbed into Getty, and if Getty's running its own show for iStock now, there's no place for more managers. They've already got their own management team. So folks like JJ and KK become redundant.

Dead right. If he was axed for fighting for contributors they would have put someone else in his place. If he quit in fury over them sacking his mates he would not meekly stick around for a few months to help them out by training other to do bits of his job.

What's happened is that Ms Rockefeller has completed her report on Integration and Profit Maximization at iStockphoto.com, the top dogs have approved it and it has now been implemented (incidentally, not only making KT redundant but also making him look foolish, once more. for confidently saying a few months ago that plans for iStock's development were mapped out for years ahead).

At least Jamesbenet is right about JJ's reputation: he does seem to have an adoring fan club around the world and, no doubt, this will work in his favour in years to come. For myself, I find the hero worship on the iStock forum rather disturbing, particularly as I can't recall him ever saying anything inspirational - just some bizzarely stilted love-in exchanges between him and other officials. Did I miss something?

Really doesn't it say more about the mindset of a large subset of microstock submitters.  No wonder the sites feel they can rape and pillage at will.  Needing to feel like you are part of a perceived special community is very different than actually belonging to a authentic dynamic community.

Perception is not reality, however successful business's always have dynamic people within it who are masters at manipulating perceptions.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2012, 13:25 by gbalex »

« Reply #74 on: January 21, 2012, 13:45 »
0

Really doesn't it say more about the mindset of a large subset of microstock submitters.  No wonder the sites feel they can rape and pillage at will.  Needing to feel like you are part of a perceived special community is very different than actually belonging to a authentic dynamic community.

Perception is not reality, however successful business's always have dynamic people within it who are masters at manipulating perceptions.

What really bothers me about it is that so many people seem so eager to create a cult figure to look up to. That's not about JJRD or iStock in particular (it would be less disturbing if it were).

« Reply #75 on: January 21, 2012, 15:34 »
0

Really doesn't it say more about the mindset of a large subset of microstock submitters.  No wonder the sites feel they can rape and pillage at will.  Needing to feel like you are part of a perceived special community is very different than actually belonging to a authentic dynamic community.

Perception is not reality, however successful business's always have dynamic people within it who are masters at manipulating perceptions.

What really bothers me about it is that so many people seem so eager to create a cult figure to look up to. That's not about JJRD or iStock in particular (it would be less disturbing if it were).
I completely agree, some have just transferred that cult status to other sites, in the mean time they are missing the fact that those sites have serious issues going on which need to be addressed by us collectively! 

« Reply #76 on: January 21, 2012, 15:53 »
0
I'd like to say that having met them both last year, JJ and Kelly are two of the nicest people I have met in my life. very sincere, to the point that it sometimes came across poorly when communicating to contributors. on a business note, this is a frightening day for exclusives in particular. on a personal note, I will miss them both and their involvement. even when I didn't agree with it, I knew they meant what they said.

Same here.

I understand the emotions of those who met and knew these two gentlemen and received their attentions.

However, do you understand how others who had never got any responses from them when voicing concerns, might feel? I have nothing against the two gentlemen. I just hope that the new management will not operate only in favor of the rumored inner circle.  

« Reply #77 on: January 21, 2012, 18:57 »
0

What really bothers me about it is that so many people seem so eager to create a cult figure to look up to. That's not about JJRD or iStock in particular (it would be less disturbing if it were).

One of my reservations about iStock from my beginnings in '06 was the never-ending Kool-Aid party. I had to rub my eyes in disbelief the first few times I read the forums. And the first cult figure was, of course, Bruce.

But it was all more comprehensible back then, because the company seemed pregnant with possibility -- even another Apple in the baking. Everyone's earnings were on the up and up, quality improved by the month, there was an established hardcore of mutual backslappers, and morale rose so high that some people went dilly.

The present cloud over iStock may have a silver lining -- the new level of Getty hegemony may finally get everyone behaving like grown-ups instead of excitable (and often gullible) children.

mattdixon

« Reply #78 on: January 21, 2012, 19:26 »
0

What really bothers me about it is that so many people seem so eager to create a cult figure to look up to. That's not about JJRD or iStock in particular (it would be less disturbing if it were).

One of my reservations about iStock from my beginnings in '06 was the never-ending Kool-Aid party. I had to rub my eyes in disbelief the first few times I read the forums. And the first cult figure was, of course, Bruce.

But it was all more comprehensible back then, because the company seemed pregnant with possibility -- even another Apple in the baking. Everyone's earnings were on the up and up, quality improved by the month, there was an established hardcore of mutual backslappers, and morale rose so high that some people went dilly.

The present cloud over iStock may have a silver lining -- the new level of Getty hegemony may finally get everyone behaving like grown-ups instead of excitable (and often gullible) children.

It's not about the cult of anything, a drastic reshuffle has happened resulting in exclusives working for directly for Getty with very little remaining iStock leverage in slowing down any further royalty cuts. Not that it matters, once they finally drop the rates to 20%, we'll all be independents anyway.

« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2012, 20:42 »
0
Frankly, if you were the owner of the company and bought another business, will you reorganize and even disassemble the old core especially if the loyalty remains with the old owner? The more the contributors express resentment to the new management, the more likely they are going to make old iStock disappear. It is naive to think Kelly or Joseph would lead a resistance against Getty. That's just common sense.

« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2012, 21:22 »
0
Frankly, if you were the owner of the company and bought another business, will you reorganize and even disassemble the old core especially if the loyalty remains with the old owner? The more the contributors express resentment to the new management, the more likely they are going to make old iStock disappear. It is naive to think Kelly or Joseph would lead a resistance against Getty. That's just common sense.

Yes there is some resistance to change but I think the bigger problem is a big lack of leadership that everyone is looking for, from whom ever is in charge of iStock.

« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2012, 23:09 »
0

What really bothers me about it is that so many people seem so eager to create a cult figure to look up to. That's not about JJRD or iStock in particular (it would be less disturbing if it were).
I completely agree, some have just transferred that cult status to other sites, in the mean time they are missing the fact that those sites have serious issues going on which need to be addressed by us collectively! 
[/quote]

Try thinking a bit beyond microstock - think about religion, politics, terrorism, and how the internet can be harnessed to secure and reinforce adoration of The Leader - and you might understand what I find disturbing.

« Reply #82 on: January 22, 2012, 11:09 »
0

As I said, we know nothing about the actual situation. He might have put up a hell of fight, won some, lost some and probably fighting with one hand tied behind his back most of the time. We can't judge anyone, he probably had to navigate very difficult waters and I just think it is wrong to tarnish someone when we don't have the complete picture or when said someone can't freely talk/defend themselves. It is always very easy to put blame on someone.


You're right -- he was definitely in charge of navigating through some very treacherous waters, and I don't envy him that responsibility.  He had to thread the needle through Scylla and Charybdis with reefs on all sides.  However, in truth, we the contributors are one of those hazards.  We are part of those perilous waters, and he did, or should have, known that.  We can't just forgive him for all the other hazards he had to navigate... instead it is our duty to eat him alive for not minding us as much as the other hazards.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #83 on: January 22, 2012, 22:56 »
0

As I said, we know nothing about the actual situation. He might have put up a hell of fight, won some, lost some and probably fighting with one hand tied behind his back most of the time. We can't judge anyone, he probably had to navigate very difficult waters and I just think it is wrong to tarnish someone when we don't have the complete picture or when said someone can't freely talk/defend themselves. It is always very easy to put blame on someone.


You're right -- he was definitely in charge of navigating through some very treacherous waters, and I don't envy him that responsibility.  He had to thread the needle through Scylla and Charybdis with reefs on all sides.  However, in truth, we the contributors are one of those hazards.  We are part of those perilous waters, and he did, or should have, known that.  We can't just forgive him for all the other hazards he had to navigate... instead it is our duty to eat him alive for not minding us as much as the other hazards.

Never said anything about forgiveness and you missed the point, but that's alright.

« Reply #84 on: January 23, 2012, 21:38 »
0
Just say goodbye, and see you in hell KK


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2803 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 22:43
by hali
22 Replies
5879 Views
Last post September 21, 2010, 11:24
by Case
107 Replies
23122 Views
Last post April 13, 2011, 04:53
by ShadySue
87 Replies
12149 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 01:49
by shiyali
206 Replies
33728 Views
Last post September 01, 2017, 19:42
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results